1. On July 8, 1988, the Defendant shall receive from the Plaintiff the Changwon District Court Kimhae registry office with respect to the size of 774 square meters prior to Kimhae-si.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 19, 1988, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase KRW 230,000,000 in total amount of KRW 774m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) and KRW 29,653m2 (hereinafter “D land”) in Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, and paid all the price by paying the balance around June 10, 198.

B. On July 8, 198, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the land D on the ground of sale by the Changwon District Court, the Changhae District Court, the 20274, which received on June 23, 1988, and the registration of ownership transfer for the land of this case was completed on the ground of sale on June 23, 198. However, the Plaintiff did not obtain the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland for the land of this case without completing the registration of ownership transfer immediately and completed the provisional registration for the right to claim ownership transfer on the same day as

C. Around that time, the Plaintiff received the instant land and D land, and thereafter leased the said land to E, F, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 8 and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the Defendant sold the instant land to the Plaintiff and received the price in full. The Plaintiff is obligated to implement the principal registration procedure on August 20, 2015, for which the Plaintiff obtained a qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland and received a copy of the instant complaint seeking the registration of ownership transfer.

B. The defendant's assertion is defense that the defendant's right to claim the transfer of ownership has expired after the lapse of ten years from 1988.

However, as long as a purchaser occupies real estate that is the subject matter of sale, it is reasonable to interpret that the purchaser's right to claim for registration is not subject to extinctive prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 76Da148, Nov. 6, 1976). Since the Plaintiff has continued to possess the subject matter of sale by transferring the land to a third party, the Defendant's defense is recognized.